In doing so, Yglesias amazingly cites the disappearance of Poland in the 18th Century under Catherine the Great of Russia and its partition between Russia, Prussia and Austria as an example in which a country was eliminated from the face of the planet without a slaughter of the inhabitants (the fact that Hitler and Stalin partitioned Poland in 1939-1945 and slaughtered millions of Poles, Jewish and otherwise, between them somehow escapes his analysis).

Yglesias is further hobbled by his naivete in calling for the absence of a coercive element in American diplomacy. In the absence of coercion, there is simply no reason for Ahmadinejad to acquiesce to a single Western objective. Instead, he will continue to develop his nuclear program until such a time as Ahmadinejad can turn the tables of coercion, except now armed with one or more nuclear weapons and a shadowy network of terrorists to deploy them - thus sharply limiting western options for response.

But let us assume that Yglesias, and his Jew-hating mentors Mearsheimer is correct. Let's assume that Ahmadinejad is simply calling for a transfer of state power over Israeli land, and harbors no ill will toward the Jewish people. Well, to whom would one transfer such power? The Palestinian Authority? in other words, Hamas? But Hamas's spokesman, Dr. Ismael Radwan, has publicly called for the slaughter of Jews. No, not their transfer to political minority status in a representative government. Not their enslavement. Their slaughter.

Yglesias uses the term "in good faith" as if he knows what he's talking about. But can any westerner, Israeli or otherwise, acting in good faith with his or her family, entrust the fate of Jewish children to Hamas?

Let's go further: Hamas is not a fringe movement in Palestine. It is mainstream. It is the democratically elected majority government of Palestine. Its genocidal rhetoric and terrorist actions are a direct mandate of the wishes of the Palestinian people. If Hamas authority should weaken, one has to reckon with the possibility that into the power vacuum would swarm a howling, genocidal mob. It happened throughout Eastern Europe throughout the middle ages and into the 20th century. It happened in Nazi-occupied Europe, leveraged by the advances of rail technology and industrialization. It happened in Rwanda in the 1990s and it can certainly happen again in post-2000 Israel and Palestine.

It is not a neccessity. It is not a foregone conclusion. But it is, however, a distinct and substantial probability that represents a gamble the Israelis cannot afford to lose.

By eliminating the coercive element of American diplomacy vis. Iran, Yglesias removes any urgency for an early settlement on the part of Iran, and would only render the neccessity of a direct war between Israel and Iran more likely, not less ... and moves the time frame of the conflict back to a time when Iran will be a much stronger and more potent threat than it is now.

This policy, espoused by Yglesias, would not prevent American involvement in a war. It would escalate it, and the only advantage to America would be that we could perhaps complete the current phase of the Iraq war so that we would not have to fight the Iranians astride our key supply lines into Iraq.

The greatest stupidity in Yglesias's essay, though, comes in these words:

you could draw a distinction between the idea of destroying Israel as a political entity and the idea of destroying its population.

No, you usefully cannot, because both ideas are wholly, completely unacceptable - at least to freedom-loving people. I guess libtards no longer qualify. What Yglesias is doing is laying the intellectual groundwork for selling out a free people into slavery and fear. To free men, and New Hampshire residents, such a tradeoff is unthinkable. To a libtard, it's just one more card on the table. But actually leveraging military power in defense of freedom, of course, is off the table.

Natch, in floating this repulsive construction, he's germinated the seeds of libtardism, allowing the latent anti-semitic, Jew-baiting tendencies therein to become florid. Read the comments.

Yglesias amazingly cites the disappearance of Poland in the 18th Century under Catherine the Great of Russia and its partition between Russia, Prussia and Austria as an example in which a country was eliminated from the face of the planet without a slaughter of the inhabitants

Say, that's a great idea! Don't look at me like that.

All we need to do is eliminate Iran. We can break it up into its component parts. The Kurds can have their section, the Baluchis theirs, whoever else who wants to be independent can have theirs, and the rest can become the new Persia. Problem possibly solved.

I think the keys to this argument lie in the fact that the Israeli Palestine problem is an Arab/Israeli issue and not an Iranian one. Why should the Iranians be sticking their noses where is does not belong. The answer goes a long way towards explaining Iranian motivations.

You know how it is Jason, the Iranians want to take ownership of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to advance their influence in the region and the world. I man even in Europe they could grow in standing if they were to stand up to the evil Jews, and help push them into the sea. And of course could become the heroes of the Arab street, something they have not been able to achieve in the last 6000 years of existence. Not to mention maybe wipe out a few Sunnies and christens.

You know I have had a sort of working theory going for a while about Iranian Bomb plans. I think that if they were to achieve a bomb, they would not put it on a missile. They would truck it overland, probably through Kurdistan and down thru Anbar, to the West Bank, and maybe even as far as Beirut..But that is just a crazy theory of mine. Anyway Killing the Jews is most likely only a continent excuse to kill the rest too.